The point is that it turns up on Google News looking for all the world like a real review, which might confuse consumers. And most companies offer blurbs and positive PR, but they don't assemble whole fake reviews.

The point is that it turns up on Google News looking for all the world like a real review, which might confuse consumers. And most companies offer blurbs and positive PR, but they don't assemble whole fake reviews.

Agree. On the other hand, there is barely a site out there that doesn't harbour a major bias in one or the other direction. Sites that cloth themselves in the mantle of a legitimate review site without admitting to those biases are far worse. At least in this case, it is glaringly obvious in what direction the reviewer is biased. No?

Personally, I think the review is terrible... barely any substance at all, yet I find it more honest than what many "legitimate" review sites have on offer.

The point is that it turns up on Google News looking for all the world like a real review, which might confuse consumers. And most companies offer blurbs and positive PR, but they don't assemble whole fake reviews.

Did you even read TC article? For example, they complaint about screen size and they said the screen is smallish. Wow talking about biased review.

Did you even read TC article? For example, they complaint about screen size and they said the screen is smallish. Wow talking about biased review.

Yes? The issue I was addressing was the Nokia "review" of the 620, not TechCrunch's commentary. And in today's world, 3.8" is smallish. For better or worse. I don't see how pointing that out is evidence of bias.

You know what you're getting when you read certain sites. Same as with reading certain posters. You have to take it with a grain of salt and consider the source.

Yeah, you and I do, but we hang around places like this and certainly digest a lot more smartphone related information than most. I think tekhna was referring to the non-smartphone-enthusiast, as was I, and it is precisely those people that more heavily rely on the information such review sites publish. In most cases you can take an uninformed buyer, sit him/her infront of any particular review website, and after one hour correctly predict which device they would buy... depending on which review site you provided access to of course. It's kind of ridiculous.

Yeah, you and I do, but we hang around places like this and certainly digest a lot more smartphone related information than most. I think tekhna was referring to the non-smartphone-enthusiast, as was I, and it is precisely those people that more heavily rely on the information such review sites publish. In most cases you can take an uninformed buyer, sit him/her infront of any particular review website, and after one hour correctly predict which device they would buy... depending on which review site you provided access to of course. It's kind of ridiculous.

Right. If Google or Apple published their own reviews of their own products, written by their own writers, people here would be calling it propaganda or disinformation to mislead consumers--and rightly so. Instead for some reason people are defending it? Not really sure why.

And in today's world, 3.8" is smallish. For better or worse. I don't see how pointing that out is evidence of bias.

Agree again. It is smallish and that must be pointed out. However, implying that this is objectively good or bad is what makes the review entirely unprofessional. The reviewer can point out the consequences of a smaller screen (harder to type quickly, easier to hold with small hands), but should let each reader decide for themselves if that amounts to an overall positive or an overall negative.

I would also say this doesn't necessarily prove reviewer bias, but as that reviewer never complained about the pre iPhone 5's screen sizes, I think there likely is.

Right. If Google or Apple published their own reviews of their own products, written by their own writers, people here would be calling it propaganda or disinformation to mislead consumers--and rightly so. Instead for some reason people are defending it? Not really sure why.

I can't speak for others, but personally, I couldn't care less if Apple and Google published their own reviews. I wouldn't take them any more seriously then this self-review from Nokia. I'm not defending them. I just don't take it seriously, so it doesn't bother me. I don't take the verge seriously either, nor engadet, nor a whole host of other main stream review sites. Maybe I'm too cynical, but since I don't expect objective reviews (particularly not from sites targeting mainstream consumers), I don't think any harm was done. At least in this case the site isn't pretending to have an interest in objectivity. For anyone willing to spend three minutes checking out the site it becomes glaringly obvious it is "Nokia only".